Not everybody is getting into a job just because it makes money. People have passions and ambitions to have an impact on the world sometimes. Doesn't mean that you can't do both at the same time. I chose to not work for one of those ad-tech companies, would have multiplied my salary by 10 easily just at entry level, but optimizing a system so people click more on ads is not what I want to spend my life doing. Of course you could take the big salary and do good with the money... Later... but I don't see many people around me doing that efficiently and a lot of what they give is wasted by people that know how to abuse them for "a good cause". And in the meantime more important work has to be done anyway.
Yes, what a reductive, bogus article! The assumption that 1) people choose majors based solely on ROI and 2) you cannot enter a field outside the domain or discipline you studied in college are both ridiculous and flawed.
Even if one were to take the lucrative salary at an ad-tech or fin-tech company, and then invest that in "effective altruism", you'd likely never offset the net harm, even if you contributed 100% of your salary.
Regardless of whether it's the 'best' way to do things...
I see employment prospects coming up more and more with young people. Pretty much everyone I know feels jobs these days are very insecure and can be gone in a heartbeat. So a career with high demand and good pay is seen as a bit of 'insurance' against the bad times.
This is somewhat addressed when talking about not just “what major” but “from where”. Also the article isn’t advocating you necessarily pick major based on ROI, it’s suggesting you factor that in when a) getting a loan and b) projecting your future income.
I think the best critique of the article’s thesis somebody else mentioned which is just because one studies sociology doesn’t mean they can’t later go on to be a dentist.
As well as the “this is a lot to ask of a 17yo” :)
For some definition of "is available." If these 17yos are already capable of conducting research based on primary sources and not provided to them in a structured learning environment, why do they need to go to college?
The implicit blame-placing in "students aren't using it" is unhelpful. We're mostly talking about people who, by definition, haven't even graduated high school.# If DoE wants students armed with this information, it should do a better job of setting policy for guidance counselors.
# Yes, there are non-traditional students but they are in the minority. Yes, people can switch majors, but there's enormous cost to doing so for the populations we're talking about.
Ironically, the idea that "googling things" about a topic won't lead to reductive and incomplete answers might exactly be why you give such a reductive and incomplete answer here.
I think there's an idea out there that a this is a life plan that will succeed:
- Go to college
- Take loans to pay for it if you need to
- Get a degree in something that interests you
- Get a career in that field
- Make money, buy a house, have a family
It seems that this vision is becoming less true than it used to be or has more caveats (try to save money on the schools you attend, pick a degree that pays decently and that there are lots of available jobs in, find a cheaper market to buy your house in).
I think the life planning of people entering college has taken quite a while to catch up as this shift has occurred. Although it does seem to be taking hold now as more and more people discover that they really struggle to get out from under student loan debt, can't get jobs in their relevant fields, or find they can't buy a home.
I think it's good to see data like this put together, and more crucially to present some realistic perspectives to kids about what possible paths they might take in life and what the risks/rewards of those plans might look like.
That was the life plan the boomers took for granted, except the college part was largely optional. Now it's our fault that we don't live the same magical charmed lives they did.
Passion was the only guidance I had it that age. Hard to become fascinated by hings you haven't really touched before; Or just in school, which might actually actively discourage you.
Hobbies are the experience outside of school you have when making the decision what to study.
Looking up the highest paying major, and then choosing to study it, is not even a realistic option for most students. Many college majors have fairly selective entrance requirements, such as math and freshman GPA scores. To major in engineering at the nearby big ten university, you have to be accepted into it, after your freshman year. You have to pass the "weeder" course.
Nursing is an interesting example from the article. However, imagine a nurse who is just not suited to dealing with people, or following rules.
In addition, majoring in something that you're not sincerely interested in, is likely to be a severe if not crippling handicap. Doing with punishing effort what your classmates are doing as a game, semester after semester, might be effectively prohibitive beyond a certain level.
I think the argument isn’t that you can’t study what you want, but that you personally will be on the hook for paying for the privilege, now or later.
Rather than Society, through increased wages, paying you to study (after a suitable employment lag).
If your major is your passion, and you don’t need certification, then there is no better time to be an autodidact and skip all the bills. Online books, free online lectures and content exploiting modern production values...sheesh.
If the profession requires the certification, then they need to pony up the extra money for your wages to pay off the debt, or accept the fact that it will be an wealthy-class playground.
University didn't go super well for me, but in retrospect the experiences I treasure the most are the ones I never would've sought out on my own. If you see college as a long form of `#import book`, sure, but that's exactly what it shouldn't be.
I happen to be interested a lot in a field that pays off well - I'm lucky. I can't imagine studying something that's not my thing just because there's money in it and I certainly wouldn't expect that of anyone else, it would be a nightmare.
Because taxpayers are guaranteeing it. It’s how you get elected by both “helping” students and keeping taxes low.
Long term, you’re harming students and taxpayers, but short term the optics look like you helped and you don’t have a cash outlay for helping anyone so it doesn’t affect the budget.
Important note: defunding higher education also helps people get elected. It's been going for decades. My partner works for a state university system in a red a state and their budget has been cut every year since the 90's. People like to point at bloated administrative salaries and facilities when they talk about skyrocketing education costs, but the fact of the matter is that state schools receive a fraction of the funding they used to, and that makes for the majority of rising tuition costs.
For one because you want a society that isn’t purely optimized for immediate earning potential as breakthroughs and advances that push society forward can come from multiple areas. And for another perhaps you want to be able to provide the opportunity to study a subject regardless of whether you can pay for it outright or not.
Direct impact on policy and government: Historical analysis of subaltern groups has been a huge component of activism for women's rights, racial justice, and gay rights around the world. Foucault's work has enormously changed the way that people think about state power and its command over violence and surveillance, for example by updating Bentham's model of the panopticon for a modern world. This is critically important to understanding the two largest political powers (US and China) and their relationship with information and communication. And for better or worse, history and political science was a huge influence on the development of socialist and communist governments and their influence on the world.
Teaching the population: The humanities teaches empathy and media literacy better than any other field I know, and 20th century work has expanded that skilset dramatically. This is very useful for people who don't end up in "humanities careers" to have some experience with these practices, especially in the modern global world with deliberately crafted narratives all over the place.
Understanding technology: There is a moment in "the social dilemma" where the main activist (I forget his name) mentions that social media is not a tool because people are worried about its ability to damage civilization and he compares it to the bicycle, which he claims did not produce such worry. This is completely false, since the bicycle was absolutely a large concern since it enabled women to travel distances without their husbands. Had anybody involved in the doc thought to consult a historian of technology, they wouldn't have put forward such a terrible analysis and weakened their argument (and the proposed solutions). There are numerous such examples of this sort of error where a little bit of humanities background would enable us to develop technology more precisely.
A sideways answer is that practicing/studying X and then doing X will improve the efficiency of doing X. However, practicing/studying Y and then doing X can result in novel ways of doing X that could be leaps and bounds better, or even lead to doing Z which is a breakthrough.
> advances that push society forward can come from multiple areas
"Multiple areas" that could produce advances that can push society forward is still a much narrower category than "areas that are eligible for student loans".
> perhaps you want to be able to provide the opportunity to study a subject regardless of whether you can pay for it outright or not
Students can study any subject they want for free over the Internet. Major institutions have their entire curriculum available for free online. There is no reason why taxpayers should have to subsidize college tuition for that.
And so the question becomes, as it has been for 5 years and could have been for 20 years, how good is an online education, or an online+ education, compared to a classical lecture/exam/lab education? And what should the “+” in an online education look like? And how much should this cost? And does a University add value to the Community and Nation by its sheer existence and, if so, how and at what cost?
The greatest challenge I imagine to pure online is the possibilities to cheat during assessment/certification. They are rising anyway with the improvement in IT and are exacerbated by more virtual interaction. The Panopticon might be unavoidable.
More direct one-on-one time with professors, whether online or physical, could help. The professor as tutor, rather than researcher who gives the occasional lecture series.
Would also help with motivation, although one of the requirements of getting a college education is that the student demonstrates sufficient self-motivation to complete a program. It isn’t supposed to be super high school...although my impression is colleges were more like super prep schools before the introduction of the GI Bill after WWII changed/matured collegiate life for the better.
That goal is not achieved by subsidizing college education in which students get to pick whatever major they want and have only a smattering of courses outside their major.
According to the people who structured the US public education system, secondary school (middle school and high school) was supposed to serve this goal, not college. And the US does provide free secondary education to all, in which the basic curriculum is dictated by the government and, while students do have some choice in what courses to take, their choices are much more limited than in college and they are unavoidably exposed to a much wider variety of subject matter.
In the US, 44 percent of people age 25-64 have a college degree; only 6 countries have a higher percentage and the highest is Canada at 54 percent, which isn't that much higher.
> they don't make people go into massive debt for it
It is true that many other countries have free college education; however, as shown by the numbers above, this does not seem to have resulted in a larger fraction of their people getting college degrees.
What is missing is data to support that, perhaps reasonable, assumption.
Objective data not provided by those who stand to benefit from a positive result.
Data that objectively identifies how that benefit is accrued and at what amount.
The kind of data that guided the development of every major industrial and service sector over the last 50 to 100 years and is inexplicably lacking in higher education.
I suspect that even if hardness or effort could really be quantified and compared, there would be some glaring counterexamples to this rule. I know someone who is a classical violin performance major. She has a very heavy, difficult workload.
Which then brings up the painful question, with today’s mountain of recorded music and audio and AI techniques to make Joe Average sound like Heifitz, how many classical violinists do we, as a society, need?
If, in a population of 7B+, the children of top .1% in wealth can supply that, then they pay their own way. They can also more easily economically survive the ups and downs of a musician’s career.
Just doesn’t seem fair, though...reinforcing the natural elitist bent in classical music.
That question has nothing to do with fact that theory where money are reward for hard degree is bonkers.
Another glaring contra example: I studied computer science. I like it, but fact is that getting that degree is much less work and easier then chemistry, history and whole bunch of other degrees. I however earn the most.
Because unless the data is controlled for factors that influence outcomes independent of school or degree program, what you actually have is data on the degree programs that attract the people that will be successful.
That's nearly 100% what the outcome data on pre-college schools in the US tells you, so I'd be surprised if the college degree data did not have significantly the same problem.
sounds like something useful for student loan companies. if the student is in "safe" major decrease interests, and if they are in risky one, increase the rate. and market the reasoning.
and voila, students now have incentive for cheaper and reliable courses. which results in better ROI on student loans
The issue is that this might flood talented people to majors they don't like, yet who would be employable otherwise, while also being unfair to those who get a good job. Back in finance, I've met investment bankers and consultants who've majored in music and history. And yes, they often bring a unique perspective into the fold.
I don't get it. Is that the impression you're getting from it? You don't have to choose the highest paying field, you just have to choose a field that you like and pays well, and acknowledge that choosing a field you love most might come at the expense of finances in the future.
Some college majors are net negatives to society (gender/women studies, among others). These should not be supported by government backed loans, and should not be guaranteed by taxpayers.
